Jump to content

House Democrats Propose $825 Billion Stimulus Bill


Recommended Posts

Democrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in thejob stimulus; -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!
The fact that, out of a huge ridiculous bill, this is the thing they choose to pick on, is the main reason Republicans are not in power. In a bill that is 99.9% stupidity, they pick a part that is at worst neutral to be their poster child?But it does make them talk about "stimulus" and "sex" at the same time, so that's worth something.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 433
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The fact that, out of a huge ridiculous bill, this is the thing they choose to pick on, is the main reason Republicans are not in power. In a bill that is 99.9% stupidity, they pick a part that is at worst neutral to be their poster child?But it does make them talk about "stimulus" and "sex" at the same time, so that's worth something.
I disagree. The reasons the repulicans are out of power is that they allowed too much of this kind of thing when they were running the show. Hopefully, this won't be the only 'thing they choose to pick on' It makes for a catchy headline which hopefully will bring attention to the ridiculousness of the bill as a whole. It caught my eye as it was headlined on Drudge Report.
Link to post
Share on other sites
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/28/the-...t-bill-of-2009/The Wall Street Journal calls it the “40-year Wish List”. Michelle calls it the “Generational Theft Act”. Others have started calling it the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Debt Act. Whatever name one gives it, the least likely is stimulus. The WSJ calculates that no more than 12 cents on the dollar in the trillion-dollar whale goes to actual economic stimulus, and that the rest go to Democratic wish lists for electoral advantage: We’ve looked it over, and even we can’t quite believe it. There’s $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There’s even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons. In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make “dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy.” Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There’s another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities. Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren’t likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President’s new budget director, told Congress a year ago, “even those [public works] that are ‘on the shelf’ generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy.”The bill contains a hefty increase in subsidies for public transportation. Will that stimulate the economy? Not really, but it does protect public-sector jobs, almost all union positions, and that helps Democrats get more union money. It’s the Democratic Party Stimulus Act, not a recipe for economic revival.The Journal discovers another “lu-lu” in public transportation, but not the kind you’d expect. Congress wants to spend $600 million on new cars for federal agencies. Do you have the money to buy a new car in 2009? Well, you won’t if this bill passes, but apparently a few thousand federal employees will enjoy that luxury, thanks to your tax dollars.Remember when Barack Obama promised to end ineffective government programs in his inaugural speech? That was just eight days ago. Apparently, we’ve hit the expiration date: As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as “ineffective” or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.The Department of Education gets a whopping $66 billion in this bill. In 2001, the federal government spent $35 billion in total in the Department of Education, and by 2006 the Bush administration raised it to $85 billion, almost tripling the outlay. Now Congress wants to add $66 billion on top of what we’ve already budgeted for the DoE, a figure that almost doubles the entire 2001 DoE budget from just eight years ago. Will it stimulate the economy? Not at all. It pays off a Democratic Party constituency.Congress should be embarrassed by this kind of naked political exploitation of economic crisis. Unfortunately, they’re not. It’s up to us to embarrass them. Time to Melt the Phones in DC.
Link to post
Share on other sites
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/28/the-...t-bill-of-2009/The Wall Street Journal calls it the “40-year Wish List”. Michelle calls it the “Generational Theft Act”. Others have started calling it the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Debt Act. Whatever name one gives it, the least likely is stimulus. The WSJ calculates that no more than 12 cents on the dollar in the trillion-dollar whale goes to actual economic stimulus, and that the rest go to Democratic wish lists for electoral advantage: We’ve looked it over, and even we can’t quite believe it. There’s $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There’s even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons. In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make “dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy.” Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There’s another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities. Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren’t likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President’s new budget director, told Congress a year ago, “even those [public works] that are ‘on the shelf’ generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy.”The bill contains a hefty increase in subsidies for public transportation. Will that stimulate the economy? Not really, but it does protect public-sector jobs, almost all union positions, and that helps Democrats get more union money. It’s the Democratic Party Stimulus Act, not a recipe for economic revival.The Journal discovers another “lu-lu” in public transportation, but not the kind you’d expect. Congress wants to spend $600 million on new cars for federal agencies. Do you have the money to buy a new car in 2009? Well, you won’t if this bill passes, but apparently a few thousand federal employees will enjoy that luxury, thanks to your tax dollars.Remember when Barack Obama promised to end ineffective government programs in his inaugural speech? That was just eight days ago. Apparently, we’ve hit the expiration date: As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as “ineffective” or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.The Department of Education gets a whopping $66 billion in this bill. In 2001, the federal government spent $35 billion in total in the Department of Education, and by 2006 the Bush administration raised it to $85 billion, almost tripling the outlay. Now Congress wants to add $66 billion on top of what we’ve already budgeted for the DoE, a figure that almost doubles the entire 2001 DoE budget from just eight years ago. Will it stimulate the economy? Not at all. It pays off a Democratic Party constituency.Congress should be embarrassed by this kind of naked political exploitation of economic crisis. Unfortunately, they’re not. It’s up to us to embarrass them. Time to Melt the Phones in DC.
Yes, but, well, we have to do something. EDIT: SUCK IT OBAMA. Every Republican voted no. No holding this over Repubs heads come reelection time.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the biggest sham of all time... If he signs this and it doesnt work... We will have 4 years of Obama and No More290,000 spent per Job Created... Estimated 4 Million Jobs...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this is why they call it a stimulus package:

Porn Part Of Job At U.S. AgencyWed, 01/28/2009 - 11:57 — Judicial Watch BlogEmployees at the multi billion-dollar federal agency that promotes science and national health spend substantial amounts of work hours viewing pornography on government computers yet a chunk of economic stimulus money is coming its way. With an annual budget of $6.6 billion, the National Science Foundation (NSF) was created by Congress in 1950 to promote the progress of science, advance national health, prosperity and welfare and to secure national defense. The NSF has about 1,700 employees at its Arlington Virginia headquarters, including about 150 scientists from research institutions. According to a 68-page semiannual report published by the NSF Inspector General, many of them spend quite a bit of time—often significant portions of their workdays—watching, downloading and e-mailing pornography. Investigators found “numerous reports” and more than half a dozen investigations into “abuse” of NSF information technology resources. The abuse took place over periods of months or even years, according to the report, which states that one “senior official” spent as much as 20% of his working hours over a two-year interval viewing sexually explicit images and engaging in sexually explicit online chats with various women. The estimated cost to U.S. taxpayers for that one case was nearly $60,000, investigators said.A selective sample of a single internal server at the agency found even more NSF workers harboring hard-core porn images on their government computer hard drives, according to the report. Overwhelmed investigators say the number of “inappropriate use” cases was too large to thoroughly probe them all. The limited nature of the sampling—its restriction to only one computer drive—cannot therefore measure the actual extent of the misbehavior, the report points out. Yet, on the heels of this shameful revelation, the NSF will get $3 billion from the Democrat-sponsored economic stimulus bill making its way through Congress this week.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess this is why they call it a stimulus package:
LOL, hey the guy needed a break!! does anybody monitor poker sites or or forums??
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a long article, but worth it. I don't completely agree with their conclusions, for various reasons, but they definitely have the direction correct.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Richard W. RahnIf you knew economic growth and new job creation begin to slow when total government spending is larger than about 25 percent of the economy, and you knew total government spending in the United States is about 36 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), would you propose policies to make government larger or smaller to create more jobs and boost economic growth?Over the last few decades, many economists have done studies on the "optimum" size of government. A new study just completed shows the optimum size of government is less than 25 percent of GDP.Optimum is defined as that point just before government becomes so large as to reduce the rate of economic growth and job creation. Governments are created to protect people and property. A government too small to establish the rule of law and protect people and their property from both foreign and domestic enemies is less than optimal.The American Founding Fathers also believed government had public health functions (as contrasted with spending on private health), such as draining swamps where malaria-infected mosquitos thrived; and some public works functions (e.g. building and maintaining roads, and ensuring basic education - but not necessarily state-operated schools).The American Founding Fathers also understood that government could easily become too large, which would diminish the liberties of the people and discourage them from engaging in productive activity. The socialist utopians were in denial of the basics of human nature, which scholars like Adam Smith and the American Founders well understood.Nevertheless, countless socialist schemes to enlarge the size of government have been sold to naive people. After two centuries of experimentation and the unnecessary loss of hundreds of millions of human lives, most of mankind now understands that pure socialism leads to tyranny and economic stagnation.The question remains: Between the extremes of virtually no government and a pure communist state, how much government is necessary and desirable, and when does it become a drag on both liberty and economic well-being?Economists have tried to quantify the question by looking at the experience of countries (and economic/political entities) over time as the size of their government grew or contracted, and by making comparisons of governments of various sizes. Most studies measure the size of government as a share of GDP (realizing it is an imperfect measure because it does not measure counterproductive regulation, restrictions on liberty and other factors, but is a reasonable approximation).Wise observers have well understood that free markets and uncontrolled prices do a far better job in allocating resources (labor and productive investment) than politicians, who tend to resort to deciding what they believe is best for other people and, of course, rewarding their friends.Most of the studies of the optimum size of government made by reputable scholars in recent decades have indicated that total government spending (federal plus state plus local) should be no lower than 17 percent, nor larger than about 30 percent of GDP. In a just completed paper, economists at the Institute for Market Economics in Sofia, Bulgaria, have provided new estimates of the optimum size of government, using standard models, with the latest data from a broader spectrum of countries than had been previously available. Their conclusion is that there is a 95 percent probability that the optimal size of government is less than 25 percent of GDP.Because most governments are - and have been for many years - larger than the optimal, there are insufficient data to give a point estimate as to the best size, other than it is less than 25 percent. Other studies have shown small-population homogeneous countries, such as Finland, may have slightly higher optimal government sizes than heterogeneous countries, such as Switzerland and the United States.The ramifications of this study and previous ones are important for the current debate going on in the United States and many other countries, about having the government spend more to "stimulate" the economy - i.e. create jobs and increase growth rates.Rather than increasing the size of government, the empirical evidence shows that sharply reducing taxes, regulations, and government spending down to at least 25 percent of GDP would do the most to spur economic growth and create more jobs over the long run.There is virtually no empirical evidence - in the United States or anywhere else - to support the belief of economists of the Keynesian school that a big increase in government spending will make matters better, rather than worse. Economists of the Austrian school have, in general, supported smaller government as a way to achieve higher levels of both prosperity and individual freedom, and the empirical evidence shows them to be correct.In the United States, periods of rapid economic growth, such as 1983-89 and 1992-99, have been associated with a reduction in the total size of government. During the 1970s and much of the last decade, total (federal, state and local) government spending grew to a post-World War II record (36 percent), and these periods were associated with lower economic growth. In recent decades, many European countries have greatly increased government spending as a percentage of GDP, and as a result most of them experienced lower growth rates and much higher rates of unemployment than the United States.Those members of Congress and parliamentarians in other countries who vote for a "stimulus package" that increases the size of government will be voting for slower economic recovery and higher rates of unemployment over the long run, based on both solid empirical evidence and theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

GOP governors push for passage of the stimulus bill. Score one for "states' rights". :)Sarah Palin will meet with Mitch McConnell to talk stimulus bill. I would love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation. "Golly gee, Mitch, we need some gosh darn money for education and snow tires and stuff."

Link to post
Share on other sites
pretty much every scientist thought global warming was being caused by SUV use....
sorry to interrupt the economix, but this is a statement that i think is based more on your perception than actual evidence. it's been known for a long time that our main problems are overpopulation and deforestation and methane production due to meat consumption.
Link to post
Share on other sites
GOP governors push for passage of the stimulus bill. Score one for "states' rights". :)Sarah Palin will meet with Mitch McConnell to talk stimulus bill. I would love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation. "Golly gee, Mitch, we need some gosh darn money for education and snow tires and stuff."
by Brian FaughnanIf true, it wouldn’t be a surprise. After all, for the nation’s Governors, this would effectively be ‘free’ money coming at a time of extreme budget challenges. Who wouldn’t push for it? But while it might seem logical that they would, I can’t see any evidence on the public record that ‘most Republican Governors’ are ‘pushing for passage’ of the debt plan.In Touhy’s piece, she cites Florida’s Charlie Crist and Vermont’s Jim Douglas among those pushing for enactment (but elsewhere Crist seems decidedly unenthusiastic). I can also find evidence that Connecticut’s Jodi Rell is lobbying for it, Alabama’s Bob Riley seems eager for it to pass, and it’s obvious that Arnold Schwarzenegger is an enthusiastic supporter. But among the 22 Republican Goverors, those 5 are the only strong supporters I can find — at least based on the results of a good deal of searching on Google News.Alaska’s Sarah Palin supports the transportation component of the package. I can find no recorded position for Arizona’s new Republican Governor Jan Brewer, but the state assumes enactment of the stimulus package to help close a budget shortfall. Hawaii’s Linda Lingle is anticipating passage as well. Jim Gibbons is characterized in several places as a supporter, though I don’t see a formal statement. Rhode Island’s Don Carcieri ‘has great ways to spend it.’ Mike Rounds (SD) and Jon Huntsman (UT) sound like backers. Tim Pawlenty (MN) says he wouldn’t refuse the money, and John Hoeven (SD) sounds like has plans for the cash, too.Georgia’s Sonny Perdue is clearly not counting on the money, but I can’t find any formal position for him. Butch Otter of Idaho falls into the same category. Nebraska’s Dave Heineman is proceeding with budget cuts regardless of the outcome of the Congressional debate.Indiana’s Mitch Daniels expresses great misgivings about the plan, but ‘hopes it works.’ The package is outright opposed by Rick Perry (R-TX), Mark Sanford (R-SC), and Haley Barbour (R-MS). Bobby Jindal (R-LA) says he would have voted against the bill, (but will take the money if it comes).So of 22 Republican Governors, 5 are taking whacks at the pinata, 4 are trying to knock the sticks out of their hands, 3 of them have got firm plans to go without whatever may hit the floor, and 10 are opportunistically waiting to see what they get. I don’t see how that translates into ‘most Republican governors’ pressing for Congress to pass the plan — at least unless Fouhy has access to more information that I missed, and which doesn’t appear in her article.And of course, the nature of the debate makes it hard for a Governor to oppose this windfall — who wants to explain budget cuts to the voters while money is left on the table? The view of Pawlenty, Hoeven, and several others is the most fiscally conservative attitude consistent with their self-interest: that of not endorsing the plan, but taking the money anyway. Nevertheless 7 Republicans actually oppose the plan or are refusing to take the funds — a position that actually hurts them politically.You would expect all 50 of the nation’s governors to be begging for this help. In fact, very few Republican governors are doing so despite the obvious incentive. The Associated Press gets the headline exactly wrong.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Charlie Crist is just hedging his bets. He wants to appear to not like the stimulus but Florida is in such dire straits economically that he needs the money.I cannot speak with any authority about any other state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Write your senators people. They're the next stop and from what was on yahoo news it looks like it won't pass as is. Here's your chance to make some input into where you think the money should and should not go. I never did have much hope for the House but then our 1 representative there was certain to vote no anyway. But we have 2 conservative Democratic senators from our state (I know it sounds like an oxymoron conservative Democrat but it is true) so I'm writing them. I'm pretty sure Jon Tester will vote no but I'm never sure about Cousin Max Baucus. But regardless, if they hear from enough people back home, then it's bound to have some impact especially those who are coming up for reelection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
GOP governors push for passage of the stimulus bill. Score one for "states' rights". :)Sarah Palin will meet with Mitch McConnell to talk stimulus bill. I would love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation. "Golly gee, Mitch, we need some gosh darn money for education and snow tires and stuff."
She would've had me at Golly Gee...
Link to post
Share on other sites
Charlie Crist is just hedging his bets. He wants to appear to not like the stimulus but Florida is in such dire straits economically that he needs the money.I cannot speak with any authority about any other state.
MN Gov Pawlenty has repeatedly stated that the bailout is a bad idea. As mentioned though, he would take the money. Both of these are for the same reason: it's ridiculous to take money from people, take a cut of it, give back what's left, and call that "stimulus". The only thing it stimulates is the middle men who take cuts along the way, at the expense of the person putting the money in (us). But once they take it, yeah, it'd be crazy to not ask please can I have a tiny portion of my money back.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Republicans released a list of the things that they think are pork in the bailout bill, which is now close to 900 Billion dollars. The list can be found at:http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop...ries/index.htmlThe sum of all that is just over 19 Billion, and of that, 1 billion of it is regarding the only constitutionally allowed item in the bill (the census).So that's it? That's the difference between Republicans and Democrats? In regard to the biggest pile of fetid pork to ever come out of Washington, the best response the Republicans can muster is "No, that's 2% too much"?!??!?!?!There's a movement about to get people to mail Republican leaders balls, any type will do. Mail them two golf balls or anything resembling that. It doesn't appear to be working, they still can't find them.

Don't you know, I'm talkin' 'bout a revolution." -- Tracy Chapman
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing that there can be that much pork that both sides actually AGREE on. I've written to my senators and so far have heard back from Jon Tester. Basically what I told him is that I don't have a problem with infrastructure spending. In fact, we need to do it now so it won't cost a bundle more later. But that the rest of the items in the bill had no place there. He basically wrote back that he agreed that infrastructure spending should be the top priority but he didn't give any promises about trying to cut the rest of the stuff out of the bill. Of course he's a first term junior senator so you can hardly expect him to have much influence. I really have higher hopes for Max Baucus since he heads the Finance Committee.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What would've been the headlines if Sarah Palin said this? Why does Pelosi get a pass?
There's a difference between a slip of the tongue and being completely brain dead 100% of the time.(Not that Pelosi isn't, but Palin certainly is)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...